CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 20-00334.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 20-00334.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 20-00334.a1

Apr 14, 2021· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

An applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to insufficient evidence of due process violations. The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The Board found that the applicant did not demonstrate harmful error by the Judge in the initial decision. Furthermore, she failed to provide corroborating documentation to support her assertions of due process violations. The Appeal Board also noted that it could not consider the impact of the ruling on the applicant's employment.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied based on these factors, with the applicant failing to meet the burden of proof for her claims.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 13, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing heldFeb 5, 2021Decision based on written record.
Decision dateApr 14, 2021

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence to Support Claims of Due Process Violations
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Impact of Unfavorable Decisions Not Considered in Appeals

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the Applicant after the denial of her security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The Applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's decision and acknowledged her previous failure to respond to Department Counsel. The Board affirmed the decision of the Administrative Judge.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowNoreen A. Lynch — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant did not allege any specific harmful error in the Judge's decision.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision as the Applicant did not allege any harmful error and the appeal did not present new evidence for consideration. The Board's review is limited to the record established by the Judge.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: In her appeal brief, Applicant stated she “asked the Assistant to the Judge if there was anything else they needed from me but received no response.” Appeal Brief at 1. It is unknown whom she is referring to by using the term “Assistant to the Judge” or what means she used to make that purported communication. No documentation was provided corroborating her claim. Nor did she explain why she did not attempt again to receive a response if her first inquiry went unanswered. Applicant’s assertion falls short of a prima facie showing that she was denied any due process rights afforded her under the Directive. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 20-00334.a1 DATE: 04/14/2021 DATE: April 14, 2021 ) In Re: ) ) --------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 20-00334 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se

TheDepartment of Defense (DoD)declined to grant Applicant a securityclearance. OnApril 13, 2020, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. On February 5, 2021, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Noreen A. Lynch denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief makes no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Rather, it acknowledges that Applicant made a mistake by not responding to Department Counsel’s File of Relevant Material and contends the Judge based the decision on outdated information. In an attempt to rectify her earlier mistake, Applicant’s brief makes assertions and forwards documents that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. These include a credit report and an email from a credit service agency that post-date the Judge’s decision. Such assertions and documents constitute new evidence that the Appeal Board is prohibited from considering. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. In her appeal brief, Applicant stated she “asked the Assistant to the Judge if there was anything else they needed from me but received no response.” Appeal Brief at 1. It is unknown whom she is referring to by using the term “Assistant to the Judge” or what means she used to make that purported communication. No documentation was provided corroborating her claim. Nor did she explain why she did not attempt again to receive a response if her first inquiry went unanswered. Applicant’s assertion falls short of a prima facie showing that she was denied any due process rights afforded her under the Directive. Applicant also notes that her security clearance is important for her to stay in her current job. The Directive, however, does not permit us to consider the impact of an unfavorable decision. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 19-01206 at 2 (App. Bd. May 13, 2020). Applicant asks for a “fresh look” at her case. Appeal Brief at 1. The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has failed to make such an allegation of error. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is sustainable.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board